Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[NaturalEnquirer]

No, there is something more objective than personal subjectivity and less mythological than God in which to ground morality, and that is in society and our social love of humanity, which together provide the foundation for the same ethics that religion attempts to establish pictorially rather than conceptually, by positing a dogmatic mythology.

It would be a real pity if the only reason we had for being good to each other were our mutual belief in a mythologial being who told us to do this and who would punish us later if we didn’t! In that case, our belief would lack all moral significance, and would express only our recognition of the utilitarian benefit of avoiding punishment.

That would indeed be a pity. The better Christian motivation is out of love for God and neighbor, rather than fear of punishment. A greater pity would be if someone decided that in the absence of a truly objective grounds for morality, anything is permissible. You are fooling yourself if you think that no atheists have come to that conclusion.

The thing I’ve never understood with proposed atheistic moral grounds is: why exactly should I feel beholden to a conscience that is either the product of social trends or of evolution? Consider - evolution has given me a particular instinct for catching myself when I fall. That instinct is to land on my hands/arms. Better than landing on my head, for sure - but very suboptimal when compared to proper breakfall techniques. So, if I want to improve my fall safety, I need to learn to ignore my instincts and develop new ones.

Why shouldn’t I regard my instinctive moral compass in the exact same way? A suboptimal vestige of a no-longer-relevant past environment, to be ignored at my discretion?

 

[Seeker2010]

If God - be He good or bad - does not exist then good evil etc have no meaning beyond subjective experience and that as de Sade with his adult and insightful understanding of the atheist conception rightly pointed out is irrelevant to all but the being doing the suffering.

I would tend to disagree with this sentiment.

If God does not exist (or more to the point, if an afterlife does not exist and we ‘fade to black’ for good upon death) then causing pain and suffering is even MORE evil than if he does. For killing someone, even though their death is inevitable, has a lesser consequence if their consciousness lives on than if it does not. If there is an afterlife, killing a human being merely ‘resets’ their state of consciousness to one which purportedly is better than this existence in the first place.

 

[fhansen]

I would tend to disagree with this sentiment.

If God does not exist (or more to the point, if an afterlife does not exist and we ‘fade to black’ for good upon death) then causing pain and suffering is even MORE evil than if he does. For killing someone, even though their death is inevitable, has a lesser consequence if their consciousness lives on than if it does not. If there is an afterlife, killing a human being merely ‘resets’ their state of consciousness to one which purportedly is better than this existence in the first place.

But we don’t know the fate of anyone-only that their life is of high value, sacred as we say. And life would seem to be highly* de*-valued by virtue of its being over at physical death. And in the Christian view the killer would certainly face consequences, the notion that justice will ultimately be done gives the concept of good and evil an objectivity grounded in more than this world sentiments.

 

[reggieM]

This response is made by Christians and Catholics, time and time again, when the “problem of evil” is discussed - never by atheists. When Christians run out of their semi-rational arguments, this is the last “resort”. It follows logically from the concept that this life is not “all there is”. If one believes that this life is merely a “prelude” to some perfect existence in some afterlife, then the significance of the atrocitities happening here and now are diminished.

How can you seek to refute Catholic belief while ignoring the importance of a final moral accounting (Last Judgement)? Perhaps one reason you’re tired of seeing the same argument is that you haven’t addressed it fully. ???

I think the argument is repeated because it’s irrefutable. If there is no ultimate judgement for one’s moral actions – there’s no final accountability. More importantly, the value of each human person must be weighed against:

The meaning of a human life
The value of a human life
The purpose of a human life
The origin and intent of the existence of a human life

Atheism sets all the criteria to zero. Again, this follows logically. It’s inherent in atheism itself. I think you can get frustrated because the argument is so simple, but so difficult to refute. Any believer can see the problem, and very many prominent atheists openly affirm that this is the situation. They don’t see it as a problem at all though. Life has no ultimate meaning. This has obvious consequences and implications.

In the eyes of the atheists this life is the only one.

True. A life that has no ultimate value or meaning. A life based on self-interest. A life where there is no moral accounting in the end. A life that came into existence accidentally, for no purpose. Utimately, a life that has no more value or meaning than a grain of sand.

Therefore it matters what happens here and now.

On the contrary – nothing “matters”. That’s the problem. What value can it ultimately have? What is the measure of good or evil, and why?

I have never heard an atheist saying “so what…?”. Of course that does not mean that there can be no atheist who says something like this. There certainly could be. I would attack that atheist just as vehemently as I do when a Catholic says this. But you are wrong when you think that the “so what…?” argument is a logical corollary to atheism.

This is confusing because you’re talking about individual atheists that you know. That is meaningless.

I think the problem is clear. Atheism really is, in itself, a statement of “so what”? It provides an answer to this – and that is “zero” or “nothingness”. It’s a pure negation.

 

[Seeker2010]

And life would seem to be highly* de*-valued by virtue of its being over at physical death.

I disagree.

If our consciousness cease to exist at our physical death, that does tend to make the whole ‘What’s the purpose of life’ question pretty much moot. That said, we are (or at least I am, I must recognize the possibility that I am the only sentient creature in existence is possible, if extremely unlikely) aware of our own existence. Causing someones existence to be permanently ended seems much more immoral to me than merely causing them to shift from physical life into spiritual life.

The latter is more like hitting reset on a video game.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Causing someones existence to be permanently ended seems much more immoral to me than merely causing them to shift from physical life into spiritual life… The latter is more like hitting reset on a video game. *

I can think of something even more immoral: putting an innocent man who is an atheist in prison for life. An innocent man in prison for life at least can hope and pray for the reset button.

 

[reggieM]

I can think of something even more immoral: putting an innocent man who is an atheist in prison for life. An innocent man in prison for life at least can hope and pray for the reset button.

Right. In an atheistic world (if there could be such) even putting a guilty atheist in jail for life would be kind of absurd. What is the prisoner going to achieve?

 

[reggieM]

Causing someones existence to be permanently ended seems much more immoral to me than merely causing them to shift from physical life into spiritual life.

You’re assuming that one’s existence is good and that it shouldn’t be put to an end. But that is far from proven in the atheistic worldview.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

No, there is something more objective than personal subjectivity and less mythological than God in which to ground morality, and that is in society and our social love of humanity, which together provide the foundation for the same ethics that religion attempts to establish pictorially rather than conceptually, by positing a dogmatic mythology.

It would be a real pity if the only reason we had for being good to each other were our mutual belief in a mythologial being who told us to do this and who would punish us later if we didn’t! In that case, our belief would lack all moral significance, and would express only our recognition of the utilitarian benefit of avoiding punishment.

Indeed it would be a pity and you probably think it is a good debating point but essentially the same point could be made of atheism. The ultimate arbiter of “morality” in an atheist polity can only be Might. Naked might.

Essentially the atheist cannot refute the contention that in God’s absence all is permissible. The best they can come up with is notions such as"social love of humanity" whatever that is but even if it has meaning one can decide to opt out by simply saying " I don’t love humanity". In that case what do you do? How to you police that individual’s behaviour? By use of Might. It is a commonplace for the atheist to sneer that only fear underlies Christian morality - indeed the Christian recognises Fear of God but Love is just as essential - but frankly the same is true of any possible atheist polity.

The ultimate arbiter of “morality” in a atheist polity would be Naked might…and that would be a pity or would it?

 

[R_Daneel]

If there is no ultimate judgement for one’s moral actions – there’s no final accountability.

Sure. But that is neither here not there.

More importantly, the value of each human person must be weighed against:

The meaning of a human life
The value of a human life
The purpose of a human life
The origin and intent of the existence of a human life

My question to all your criteria: “For whom?”. Life has value, if we make it valuable. Life has meaning if we hake it meaningful. Life has purpose, if we give it a purpose.

Atheism sets all the criteria to zero. Again, this follows logically. It’s inherent in atheism itself. Life has no ultimate meaning.

You confuse “meaning” with some “undefined ultimate meaning”. Where is that “ultimate meaning”?

I think the problem is clear. Atheism really is, in itself, a statement of “so what”? It provides an answer to this – and that is “zero” or “nothingness”. It’s a pure negation.

No, it is NOT pure negation of everything. It is a negation of some continuation. It is the affirmation of here and now. And that is why atheists value what exists over what “may or may not” exist. And that is why theists devalue this existence, because they believe that what exists here and now does not “really” matter in the “greater scheme” of things. If only they had some proof for their belief, they would be in great shape. But they don’t have it. All they have is their wishful thinking.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Right. In an atheistic world (if there could be such) even putting a guilty atheist in jail for life would be kind of absurd. What is the prisoner going to achieve?

In what way, apart from the arbitrary imposition of other’s subjective views of “right and wrong” could anyone be “guilty” of anything in an atheist polity?

I ask this quite genuinely. I have never seen a cogent atheist response to the question de Sade asked: Why is the girl’s right not to be raped greater than the rapist’s right to rape her?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Aboveall
*
The ultimate arbiter of “morality” in an atheist polity can only be Might. Naked might.*

That was demonstrated in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. It was also demonstrated in the former East Germany, the same part of Germany today that is about 90% atheist, and happens to be the most miserable part of Germany in which to live because it was controlled for so long by the Soviets.

Dostoevsky: If God is dead, everything is permitted.
Nietzsche: God is dead.
Hitler: Everything is permitted.

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Aboveall
*
The ultimate arbiter of “morality” in an atheist polity can only be Might. Naked might.*

That was demonstrated in the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Nazi Germany. It was also demonstrated in the former East Germany, the same part of Germany today that is about 90% atheist, and happens to be the most miserable part of Germany in which to live because it was controlled for so long by the Soviets.

Dostoevsky: If God is dead, everything is permitted.
Nietzsche: God is dead.
Hitler: Everything is permitted.

Charlemagne I think that both De Sade and Nietzsche are like the boozy uncles told to shush and be quiet at the atheist family party in case the neighbours might hear. De Sade points out that objective morality is impossible - he has never been refuted by any atheist for the good reason that his point is irrefutable - and Nietzsche points out that what passes for morality is a hotchpotch of post Christian notions about equality and mutual regard which the superior man can and may disregard at will.

Neither assertion has ever been successfully dealt with and to my mind cannot be. John Gray and Hart inter alia are correct in asserting that beside these giants the New atheism is timorous and intellectually dishonest in facing up to the insights they provide.

 

[R_Daneel]

Essentially the atheist cannot refute the contention that in God’s absence all is permissible.

This is just another serious misunderstanding. It would only be true on a desert island. But we live in communities, and our actions are judged by our fellow men. Not everything is permissible.

The best they can come up with is notions such as"social love of humanity" whatever that is but even if it has meaning one can decide to opt out by simply saying " I don’t love humanity".

Yes, someone could do that. One could find a small clearing in a forest, a nice cave nearby, or a desert island, and live completely alone. Almost no one does it, because living in a community is much more rewarding, on the long run.

 

[R_Daneel]

I have never seen a cogent atheist response to the question de Sade asked: Why is the girl’s right not to be raped greater than the rapist’s right to rape her?

Here is your simple answer:

It is based upon the principle of the reverse Golden Rule (do NOT do unto others, what you would not want them do unto you) - which is NOT a Christian concept. That is why both theists and atheists abhor senseless killing, raping and murdering. However, the atheists are unable to prevent such acts, while God would be able to prevent them. So, who is guilty for allowing such acts?

I like to ask the same question is reverse: “Why does God hold the rapist’s right to rape higher than the girl’s right not to be raped?”. And I have never seen an answer to that question!

 

[reggieM]

If there is no ultimate judgement for one’s moral actions – there’s no final accountability.

Sure. But that is neither here not there.

Well, I definitely think it is both here and there.
You judge various actions, but if there is no final arbiter, then you’re opinion or your actions have no ultimate meaning, and there’s no way to determine it. There are no final consequences, and that should be obvious. You refer to moral standards yourself, which means consequences. But they’re determined by yourself (I think) – so we need to know what kind of value you have and what authority you have to determine such things.

If you accept atheism, you declare already that you have no ultimate value.

It’s like a mathematical formula.

X*N=Y

So, we solve for Y. What is the value of Y?

X is anything at all. We’ll say a human person. That can be any number.
N is the ultimate value.

In the atheistic worldview, N=0

So, choose any value for the human. A million, a billion …
Times it’s ultimate value of zero and it is zero.

My question to all your criteria: “For whom?”. Life has value, if we make it valuable. Life has meaning if we hake it meaningful. Life has purpose, if we give it a purpose.

My answer is “for the Creator who is the ultimate good”. Necessary, unchangeable Being – who loves His creation and His creatures.

Now we know that the purpose is great and so is the value. We know the human is great, because he is created by God who is good, for a purpose which is good.

If “we” are the source of meaning and purpose, and “we” are accidental, unnecessary, a chance-by-product of unintelligent nature … then our opinion has that kind of value, namely little or none. We did not create ourselves so whatever meaning we create is illusory. It’s trivial at best – completely unnecessary.

Atheism means that – that human beings are unnecessary.

If we are unnecessary, then any “meaning” we produce is trivial and ultimately false.

Meaning and value are measured by whether something is necessary or not, and for what purpose.

You confuse “meaning” with some “undefined ultimate meaning”. Where is that “ultimate meaning”?

We recognize ultimate meaning from our origin. We were created by God for a purpose. God communicates that purpose, value and meaning to us. We can’t make it up for ourselves because we didn’t create ourselves.

No, it is NOT pure negation of everything. It is a negation of some continuation. It is the affirmation of here and now.

Yes, but the here and now have no ultimate meaning. It’s the affirmation of something which is accidental, meaningless and without ultimate value. It could not exist and that would mean nothing also. So, it’s a negation of the value of everything.

And that is why atheists value what exists over what “may or may not” exist.

An atheist declares that he has no ultimate value. Then he says that he gives value to other things. That is the zero-multiplier at work.

A grain of sand cannot declare to the clouds that they are meaningful. Even if it did, we return to “so what”? It’s a grain of sand. The clouds do not care what it thinks is meaningful.

And that is why theists devalue this existence, because they believe that what exists here and now does not “really” matter in the “greater scheme” of things.

On the contrary – that’s why it is “here and there”.
What exists here determines the greater scheme of things. It matters for eternity.
That’s why God was incarnated.

If only they had some proof for their belief, they would be in great shape. But they don’t have it. All they have is their wishful thinking.

Again, you’re attacking Theism when you should be defending atheism.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

R Daneel

*Almost no one does it, because living in a community is much more rewarding, on the long run. *

This is only true if the community is controlled by moral men. As Socrates urged, we have to figure out whether it is to be might that makes right, or right that makes might. There is no compelling reason for the atheist to believe either, and especially for the atheist who wants to dominate. But there is a compelling reason for the theist to believe that right alone makes might (as it usually does). Hitler’s godless reign lasted twelve years. Christ’s has lasted 2,000.

• “Why does God hold the rapist’s right to rape higher than the girl’s right not to be raped?”. And I have never seen an answer to that question! *

Why do you say God holds it as a higher right? Because He permits it? But if he did not permit it, or any other evil, there would be no free will. We would be automatons, pretty much what materialists think we are anyway. Isn’t that right? In a materialistic, deterministic, and godless world, the victim of rape would have no more rights than the rapist because there would be no way to stop the event. There might not even be a way to recover from it, whereas in a world with God there is always salvation offered for the criminal and his victim.

 

[reggieM]

Just to jump over to this answer, RD …

Here is your simple answer:

It is based upon the principle of the reverse Golden Rule (do NOT do unto others, what you would not want them do unto you) …

Ok, but the important part of the answer which is missing is “why?”

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Here is your simple answer:

It is based upon the principle of the reverse Golden Rule (do NOT do unto others, what you would not want them do unto you) - which is NOT a Christian concept. That is why both theists and atheists abhor senseless killing, raping and murdering. However, the atheists are unable to prevent such acts, while God would be able to prevent them. So, who is guilty for allowing such acts?

I like to ask the same question is reverse: “Why does God hold the rapist’s right to rape higher than the girl’s right not to be raped?”. And I have never seen an answer to that question!

The short answer to your question is Free Will. A world of continual divine intervention in every decision would be a world without human agency.

 

[sinnerdexter]

Yes, this is pretty much how Aquinas formulated it eight hundred years ago. He thrashed it very soundly. Peter Kreeft’s “Making Sense out of Suffering” is a great book on the subject. As is CS Lewis’s “The Problem of Pain”. Really, this argument has been beaten so hard that it’s kind of astonishing to me that it keeps coming back.

The thing is, it doesn’t have intellectual teeth, but it has emotional teeth. When we hear stories of terrible, pointless suffering, such as your woman giving birth in the forest, our hearts rend. “It shouldn’t be like this!” we cry. And our tears cloud our thoughts.

The thing is, despite our tears, you can’t do anything but assert is that suffering is inherently evil. It is at least possible that our suffering, and the suffering of the woman in the forest, and even the suffering of children, is somehow a necessary part of a greater good.
.

God has, according to the bible, been able to give people direct knowledge of things. So He could give us directly the knowledge of the lessons lernt from suffering without anyone having to suffer. Thus suffering as a leraning tool, or for any other use (other than to cause suffering) is not logical (as there are was to achieve the exact same effect without the need for suffering at all).

Giving someone this knowledge does not violate freewill, so it can not be for this reason either.

In shoprt, there is no reason for suffering that makes any logical or rational sense, other than the two I have presented:

1. God does not exist
2. God wants us to suffer (suffering for the sake of suffering)

We can’t know. Our lives are the lives of amoebas in a microscope slide; only the scientist on the other side of the microscope can truly see the big picture. And apparently, the scientist thinks that suffering is not inherently evil, because he voluntarily endured the worst suffering that our world has to offer. He suffered as much as the woman in the woods. He suffered every bit as much as the baby that was devoured, and he came out glorified on the other side and told us, “Be not afraid.”
.

I am not saying that suffering is evil or good. It doesn’t actually matter to my argument if it is either. What matters is if suffering is avoidable or not. God has the power to avoid us suffering, so if God is truly omnipotent (even in the way you describe) and loves us, then He would eliminate avoidable suffering, which as God Created suffering, and I have shown that there are ways to avoid (some if not all) suffering then why does God still allow this avoidable suffering?

I don’t deny the emotional punch of suffering. But using it to tear down the belief structure which allows suffering to be redemptive rather than just bad luck is tragically misguided.

So you object to somone pointing our flaws in your belief system…

The reason the bible requiers suffering is for redemption, but this suffering is necesary for God to forgive us. I can forgive people without them needing to suffer, does this make me a better “person” than God? If God can’t forgive without somone having to suffer for it, then I truely am greater than God because I can do something that He can’t (forgive wihtout having anyone suffer for it).

This is what you are really trying to argue: God is incapable of fogiveness without causing someone to suffer for it.

As it is possible (and therefore God should have this power even according to your definition of omnipotence), then God shoudl have this power too, or He is not Omnipotent.